Hillary Clinton Cartoons

Hillary Clinton gears up to influence midterms -- whether Dems like it or not

Hillary Clinton has ramped up her efforts to influence the Democratic Party and its voters in upcoming midterm elections, a move that some say only hands ammunition to Republican candidates.
Many thought Clinton's 2016 presidential election defeat -- which followed a failed 2008 primary campaign -- would end her political life. But the subsequent tour for the book "What Happened" has helped keep the former U.S. secretary of state visible despite her devastating loss to Donald Trump.
On Monday, Clinton activated her political machine, attending a gathering of nearly a dozen progressive groups supported by Onward Together, the post-election political organization she founded that's aimed at “advancing the progressive vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”

"So I feel as strongly today as I ever have that we all have to stand up and defend our country, and most importantly, our democracy.”

“I don’t want to see us go backwards,” Clinton told Bustle. “But organized interests fueled by ideology and huge amounts of money are trying to take us backwards. So I feel as strongly today as I ever have that we all have to stand up and defend our country, and most importantly, our democracy.”
The Clinton family also plans to restart fundraising efforts for the Clinton Foundation, which is being investigated for “pay to play” politics while Clinton headed the State Department (2009-13), inviting people to a benefit event on May 24 in New York, according to Axios. The price for attending ranges from $2,500 for a cocktail party and dinner – up to $100,000 for a special reception.
Her return to political life comes ahead of midterm elections this November, where energized Democratic voters hope to take back some control in Washington, D.C., following nearly two years of the contentious Trump presidency.
“Just as I’m working here today to try to make sure we’re prepared to do everything we can in November, there are thousands of people on the other side who are doing the same,” Clinton told Bustle. “Even though I think the energy is on our side, we have to translate that into a very strong electoral strategy.”
Clinton’s political organization boasts of giving over $1 million in grants in its first year to left-wing groups. The disclosed financial records show the organization raised only $115,000 in the last year, but because it’s registered as a nonprofit social welfare organization, the actual money raised and the identities of the donors do not have to be disclosed.
Among the groups that it gave money, according to the outlet, is Indivisible – a group that sent liberal activists to Republican town halls last year.
The Republicans, meanwhile, knowing that Clinton remains the most unpopular high-profile Democrat in the country, second only to House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, have decided to make Clinton a target during the midterm elections.
"We're going to make them own her," Republican National Committee spokesman Rick Gorka said.
Remarks by Clinton have already forced some Democrats to disassociate from her. U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., slammed the former candidate for saying that voters in America’s heartland backed Trump for president because they wanted to move the country “backward.”
"For those of us that are in states that Trump won, we would really appreciate if she would be more careful and show respect to every American voter and not just the ones who voted for her," McCaskill said.
In North Dakota, Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who faces a tough re-election fight in November, was asked in March in a radio interview when Clinton would “ride off into the sunset.”
“Not soon enough,” Heitkamp responded.

DACA should be overturned -- A new lawsuit might succeed in doing that

Demonstrators urging the Democratic Party to protect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA) rally in California.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday by Texas and six other states may finally result in the long-overdue termination of the DACA program, which was created without legal authority by President Obama in 2012 to allow children brought into the U.S. illegally to temporarily remain here under certain conditions.
The lawsuit does not address the question of whether allowing the roughly 700,000 illegal immigrants protected from deportation under DACA is a good policy or a bad one. Instead, the suit contends correctly that President Obama exceeded his authority under law and under the Constitution to create DACA without the approval of Congress and without taking other required steps.
Whatever the outcome of the suit, the ruling seems certain to be appealed and wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. President Trump announced in September that he wanted to phase out the program beginning in March, but federal judges blocked him from doing so after lawsuits were filed to keep DACA in place.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas, correctly says DACA must be invalidated because President Obama had no legal right to create the program “without congressional authorization.”
The states contend that if Congress wants to, it has the authority under the Constitution to create whatever program it wants for the illegal immigrants affected by DACA. But the president doesn’t have that power acting alone.
This is a critical point. Under the Constitution, the president can’t change laws strictly on his own authority just because he thinks such a change is a good idea that will benefit the nation. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and must approve new laws.
If this were not the case, we could have one-person rule by the president – destroying the checks and balances between branches of government that are a key part of the separation of powers in the Constitution and that safeguard our freedom.
The state of Texas was joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia in filing the lawsuit Tuesday.
In addition to lacking congressional authorization, the seven states say DACA should be thrown out because it:
· Violates federal immigration law.
· Was implemented without the notice-and-comment procedures required for all substantive government regulations and policies under the Administrative Procedure Act.
· Violates the “Take Care” Clause of the Constitution – the provision that requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
DACA essentially gives a free pass to illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before turning 16 by June 2007, granting them “lawful presence” with access to a myriad of government benefits, including work authorizations and Social Security benefits.
The lawsuit filed by seven states claims that DACA is just as “contrary to federal law” as the 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, also created by President Obama.
The 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted DAPA in 2015. That decision was affirmed by a divided Supreme Court when it had just eight justices, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The DAPA program gave illegal immigrants who were parents of children who were American citizens (usually because the children were born in the U.S.) or whose children were legal permanent residents the same type of amnesty and benefits as the DACA program gave to children brought to the U.S. illegally.
But as the 5th Circuit noted when it stopped the implementation of DAPA, letting a president exercise such power “would allow (the president) to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States – an untenable position in light of the  intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility” under federal law.
Texas and the other states involved in the successful lawsuit against DAPA had threatened to amend their lawsuit and add a claim against DACA. But when the Trump administration rescinded DACA – announcing it would not issue or renew DACA permits starting March 5 this year – the states dismissed their DACA lawsuit.
The seven states revived their lawsuit Tuesday to counter the errant injunctions blocking President Trump from ending DACA that were issued by U.S. district courts in California, New York and Washington, D.C.
In January, a California federal judge blocked President Trump’s decision to end DACA.
 A federal judge in the nation’s capital recently issued another decision that the seven states argue “took the remarkable additional step of vacating the executive’s decision to wind down DACA, granting summary judgment that the wind-down was substantively unlawful … and ordering the Executive to continue issuing new DACA applications as well,” although that judge stayed his order for 90 days.
In addition to all of the legal claims against DACA, the seven states point out that the Obama administration’s overall refusal to enforce immigration laws “caused a humanitarian crisis.”
The states cite a 2013 federal court decision that said the Obama administration “encouraged international child smuggling across the Texas-Mexico border” because even though the federal government arrested human smugglers, “it completed the criminal conspiracy … by delivering the minors to the custody” of their parents who were in the country illegally.
By promoting human trafficking, the Obama administration helped “fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday says.
The states want the U.S. District Court to declare the original 2012 DACA program invalid. They also plan to file a motion asking the federal court to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the federal government from issuing or renewing any DACA permits in the future.
The seven states assert that their “lawsuit is emphatically about the rule of law.” The “policy merits of immigration laws are debated in and decided by Congress,” not the executive branch, which “does not exercise a lawmaking role.”
Here’s the bottom line:
President Obama had no constitutional or statutory authority to create DACA and provide what amounted to an administrative amnesty program for illegal immigrants.
It is bizarre for judges in California, New York and elsewhere to hold that a president cannot reverse the executive actions of a prior president – particularly when they were improper to start with. It is time the courts recognized that.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

Kanye West says Obama never apologized for 'jackass' remarks

Following up a whirlwind week of pro-Trump tweets and freewheeling interviews, rapper Kanye West on Tuesday called out former President Barack Obama for failing to apologize for calling him a "jackass" multiple times.
The former president first used the epithet to describe West in leaked 2009 interview footage after the rapper famously interrupted singer Taylor Swift's VMA acceptance speech.
The Atlantic reported that Obama again called West a "jackass" in 2012, before acknowledging that West is 'talented.'
But Obama has never apologized for the remarks or clarified that he was kidding, West lamented in an interview with television personality Charlamagne tha God that was posted online Tuesday.
"I'm your favorite," West said, referring to Obama. "But I'm not safe. But that's why you love me. So just tell me you love me! And tell the world you love me. Don't tell the world I'm a jackass.
"You know, he never called me to apologize. The same person who sat down with me and my mom, I think should have communicated with me directly and been like, ‘Yo, Ye, you, you know what it is," West said. "I’m in the room and it was just a joke."
West also insisted he is Obama's favorite artist, and expressed regret that the former president sometimes seemed to favor other musicians.
“I’m your favorite artist," West said in the interview. "You play 'Touch the Sky' at your inauguration, and now, all of a sudden, Kendrick (Lamar) and Jay-Z and all the people you invite to the White House, like, now these your favorite rappers?”
West also stated, "I am the greatest artist of all time." He added that it therefore "makes sense" that Obama would like him, since the former president has "good taste."
But West was careful to note he hasn't completely soured on Obama.
"I love Obama," West said at one point in the interview. "I'm sure we'll hang out, go to Richard Branson's island, whatever, it'll be cool. I just think we were in a period where he had so much stuff to deal with, he couldn't deal with a wildcard like me."
The rapper's tone was markedly different from his Twitter posts last week.
"Obama was in office for eight years and nothing in Chicago changed," West tweeted Thursday.
He also posted his support for Trump on the social media site, saying he loves the president and admires his independent thinking, even though he does not always agree with him.
"I love the way Candace Owens thinks," West also tweeted. The post followed a lengthy string of pseudo-philisophical one-liners and platitudes, including "all you have to be is yourself" and "images are limitless and words aren't."
On Tuesday, West also turned up at the TMZ offices to film “TMZ Live," where he sparked outrage for suggesting that slavery was a "choice."
The interview format quickly deteriorated, with West shouting across the newsroom.
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years," West began. "For 400 years?! That sounds like a choice. Like, you were there for 400 years and it’s all of you all? Like, we’re mentally in prison. Like, slavery goes too direct to the idea of blacks,” he said. “So prison is something that unites us as one race, blacks and whites being one race. We’re the human race.”

Mueller told Trump legal team a presidential subpoena could be possible, ex-attorney says

Special counsel Robert Mueller told President Trump's legal team that he could subpoena the president to appear before a grand jury if Trump refuses an interview with Mueller's team, Trump's former lead attorney told The Associated Press Tuesday night.
John Dowd told the AP that Mueller raised the possibility of a subpoena during a meeting with Trump's legal team in March. According to accounts of the meeting first reported by The Washington Post and confirmed by Fox News, Dowd retorted: "This isn’t some game. You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States."
Dowd resigned as Trump's lead lawyer weeks later amid a dispute over how to answer Mueller's request for a presidential interview.
The meeting appears to have been the first time Mueller raised the possibility of compelling Trump to testify as part of his investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials ahead of the 2016 election.
The Post report came one day after Fox News, The New York Times and other outlets obtained a list of questions that Trump's legal team believes Mueller wishes to ask him. The Post reported that attorney Jay Sekulow compiled the list after Mueller's team gave the president's lawyers detailed information about what they wished to discuss.
The possible questions cover Trump's interactions with key figures in the Russia saga -- including former FBI Director James Comey, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.
The queries also touch on Trump's businesses and his discussions with his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, about a possible Moscow real estate deal. Cohen's business dealings are part of a separate FBI investigation.
One question asks what discussions Trump may have had regarding "any meeting with Mr. Putin," referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Another question asks what the president may have known about a possible attempt by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel with Russia before Trump's inauguration.
On Tuesday morning, Trump said it was "disgraceful" that the list of potential questions had been leaked to the media. In a brief phone conversation with Fox News, Dowd denied that he had leaked the list to the media and denied that he was the source of the initial Washington Post report on the Mueller meeting.